Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited

Author(s): Susan Hekman

Source: Signs, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Winter, 1997), pp. 341-365
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175275 .
Accessed: 26/03/2013 07:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Signs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Truthand Method:
Feminist
TheoryRevisited
Standpoint
Susan

Hekman

N 1983, THE PUBLICATION of NancyHartsock'sMoney,

Thescope
Sex,and Powerchangedthelandscapeoffeminist
theory.
ofthebookaloneensuresit a prominent
placein feminist
thought.
It includesa comprehensive
an indictment
of
critiqueofpositivism,
masculinist
theoriesofpower,and evena textualanalysisof GreekmyThe centralconcernofthebook,however,
and thesourceofits
thology.
is Hartsock's
andmethodological
lastinginfluence,
epistemological
argument.Her goal is to definethenatureofthetruthclaimsthatfeminists
advanceand to providea methodological
thatwillvalidate
grounding
thoseclaims.The methodshe definesis thefeminist
Borstandpoint.
from
her
to
her
Marx,yetadapting insights
rowingheavily
specifically
feminist
in
ends,Hartsockclaimsthatit is women'suniquestandpoint
that
the
for
the
truth
claims
of
feminism
society
provides justification
whilealso providing
itwitha methodwithwhichto analyzereality.
In thesucceeding
decade,feminist
standpoint
theoryhas becomea
of
feminist
Hartsock's
staple
theory.Nancy
essayin SandraHarding
and MerrillHintikka's
book
pathbreaking
Discovering
Reality(1983)
theconceptto a philosophical
audience.In a number
ofinfluenbrought
tialpublications,
Smith
a
method
from
Dorothy
developed sociological
the"standpoint
ofwomen."Hardingfeatured
feminist
standpoint
theory
inhertwoimportant
bookson scienceandfeminism.
PatriciaHillCollins
articulated
a specifically
blackfeminist
Butinthelate1980s
standpoint.
andearly1990scriticisms
ofthepositionmounted,
andfewer
discussions
ofitwerepublished.
Todaytheconceptoccupiesa muchlessprominent
feminist
feminist
standposition.Particularly
amongyounger
theorists,
less
pointtheoryis frequently
regardedas a quaintrelicof feminism's
inthelate1980shaveledto this
sophisticated
past.Severaldevelopments
influence.
forfeminist
First,theinspiration
declining
standpoint
theory,
in boththeoryand practice.Second,
Marxism,has been discredited
feminist
standpoint
theory
appearsto be at oddswiththeissuethathas
[Signs:Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society1997,vol.22, no. 2]
? 1997 byTheUniversity
ofChicago.Allrights
reserved.
0097-9740/97/2202-0003$01.00

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

341

Hekman

TRUTH

AND METHOD

dominatedfeminist
debate in thepast decade: difference.
Third,feminist
to
of
be
to
two
the
most
standpointtheoryappears
significant
opposed
influencesin recentfeministtheory:postmodernism
and poststructuralism.The Marxistrootsofthetheoryseemto contradictwhatmanydefine
as the antimaterialism
of postmodernism.For all of thesereasons,the
conclusion that feministstandpointtheoryshould be discardedseems
obvious.
I thinkthisconclusionis premature,thatit is a mistaketo writeoff
feminist
standpointtheorytoo quickly.Feministstandpointtheoryraises
a centraland unavoidablequestionforfeminist
theory:How do we justify
claim thatwomenhave been and are oppressed?
thetruthof thefeminist
Feministstandpointtheorywas initiallyformulatedin the contextof
Marxistpolitics.But fromthe outset,feministstandpointtheoristshave
recognizedthat feministpolitics demand a justificationfor the truth
claims of feministtheory,that is, that feministpoliticsare necessarily
epistemological.Throughoutthe theory'sdevelopment,feministstandpointtheorists'quest fortruthand politicshas been shaped bytwo centhatknowledgeis situatedand perspectivaland that
tralunderstandings:
thereare multiplestandpointsfromwhichknowledgeis produced.As the
theoryhas developed,feministstandpointtheoristshave explored,first,
how knowledgecan be situatedyet"true,"and, second,how we can acwithoutobviatingthe possibilityof critiqueand
knowledgedifference
thus a viable feministpolitics. Feministstandpointtheoristshave answeredthesequestionsin a varietyof ways;manyof theseanswershave
In the
reformulated.
thetheoryhas been frequently
been unsatisfactory;
indisan
have
made
theorists
these
course of theirarguments,however,
to
feminist
theory.
pensablecontribution
the beIt is mycontentionthatfeministstandpointtheoryrepresents
shift
thatis
a
of
in
shift
the
of
a
concept knowledge,
paradigm
ginning
What
itself.
also
but
feminist
not
epistemology
theory
transforming only
LorraineCode (1991) calls a "new mappingof the epistemicdomain"
thatcharacterizesfeminist
theoryowes muchto the articulationand defeminist
of
standpointtheory.Finally,I assertthatthistheory
velopment
feminismbecause thequestionsit raises
remainscentralto contemporary
are crucialto thefuturedevelopmentof feminist
theoryand politics.Reof theparameters
feminists
discussion
much
been
has
there
among
cently
I believethatfeminist
of a "politicsof difference."
standpointtheoryhas
laid the groundworkfor such a politicsby initiatingthe discussionof
situatedknowledges.
I. Definingthe feministstandpoint
In an articleoriginallypublishedin Quest in 1975, Nancy Hartsock
wrote: "At bottom feminismis a mode of analysis,a method of ap342

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

proachinglifeand politics,ratherthana setofpoliticalconclusionsabout

the oppressionof women" (1981, 35). The power of feministmethod,
she asserts,growsout of the factthatit enables us to connecteveryday
that shape that life (36).
lifewith the analysisof the social institutions
thatdefinesherlaterformulaThis earlyarticlerevealsthepresupposition
whilenecessarily
tionofthefeminist
standpoint:thebeliefthatfeminism,
with method,
at
the
same
time
must
be
concerned
centrally
political,
is
about
truthclaims
and
for
truth,
epistemology.Feminism, Hartsock,
and how we justifythem.But at theveryoutsetshe refersto theissue that
will complicateher search fortruthin a feministmode. She notes that
the realityperceivedby different
segmentsof societyis varied.Thus, she
concludes,"Feminismas a mode of analysisleads us to respectexperience
and differences,
to respectpeople enough to believethattheyare in the
bestpossiblepositionto make theirown revolution"(40).
For Hartsock,activityis epistemology:women and men createtheir
own realitiesthroughtheirdifferent
activitiesand experiences.If this
werethewhole story,however,thenbothtruthand realitywould be multiple,even"relative,"and Hartsockis veryconcernedto avoidthisconclusion. When she presentshertheoryof thefeministstandpointin Money,
Sex, and Power (1983c), this is the focus of her attention.She insists
that "the concept of a standpointrestson the factthat thereare some
perspectiveson societyfromwhich,howeverwell intentionedone may
be, the real relationsof humans with each otherand with the natural
world are not visible" (117). Hartsock'sgoal in the book is to definethe
conceptof a standpointand applyit to the case of women. She outlines
fivecriteriaof a standpointthat she adapts fromMarx's theory(118).
Two potentiallycontradictory
of realitystructure
definitions
thisdiscussion. First,in what todaywould be called a social constructionist
arguand sets limitsto an
ment,Hartsock assertsthatmateriallifestructures
of social relations.It followsthatrealitywill be perceived
understanding
as
material
situationsdiffer.
It also followsthatthe dominant
differently
in
will
label
its
(ruling)group society
perspectiveas "real" and reject
otherdefinitions.Second, Hartsock insiststhatwhile the rulinggroup's
thatoftheoppressedis not,
perceptionofrealityis "partialand perverse,"
that it exposes "real" relationsamong humans and is hence liberatory.
Throughouther work Hartsock struggleswiththe relationshipbetween
thesetwo definitions
of reality.It constitutesa kindof faultlinethatruns
throughherarticulationof thefeminist
standpoint.Althoughherformulationchangesovertheyears,she continuesto maintainboththatreality
is sociallyand materially
constructedand thatsome perceptionsof reality
are partial,otherstrueand liberatory.
Furtheraspects of feministstandpointtheoryemergein Hartsock's
well-knownarticle"The FeministStandpoint" (1983b). In this article
Hartsockstatesthata specifically
feministhistoricalmaterialism"might
Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

343

Hekman

TRUTH

AND METHOD

enable us to lay bare the laws of tendencywhichconstitutethestructure

of patriarchy
overtime" (283). Her dualisticconceptof realitystructures
this discussionas well. On the one hand, social constructionist
themes
recurthroughouttheargument:"I will sketchout a kindof ideal typeof
of male and femaleacthe social relationsand worldview characteristic
in
in theinstitutionalorder
to
the
contained
tivity
explore
epistemology
ized sexual divisionof labor" (289). The feministstandpoint"expresses
femaleexperienceat a particulartimeand place,locatedwithina particular set of social relations"(303). Quicklyfollowingthis,however,is the
statementthatthe feministstandpointallows us to "go beneaththesurface of appearances to reveal the real but concealed social relations"
(304). Her thesisis that "women'slivesmake availablea particularand
privilegedvantagepointon male supremacy"(284).
In this article Hartsock introducesan approach that will become
withstandpointtheory:object-relations
theory.The incloselyidentified
in herconceptof
thetensioninherent
troductionof thistheoryhighlights
reality-in a sensewideningthefaultline in thatconcept.In herdiscussion Hartsockappeals to object-relations
theoryto explainthedifference
betweenthe male and femaleexperiencesof the world (1983b, 296).
Bringingobject-relationstheoryto bear on her Marxist assumptions,
Hartsockarguesthatifmateriallifestructures
consciousness,thenwoma lifein whichdichotomies
en's relationallydefinedexistencestructures
are foreignand abstractmasculinityis exposed as partialand perverse
(298-99). Implicitin Hartsock'sdiscussionis theassumptionthatobjectstandrelationstheoryis an appropriateand usefuladditionto feminist
it
her
of
In
the
context
not
a
theory seems
major departure.
pointtheory,
and
to fitnicelywiththeMarxistthesisthatrealityis sociallyconstructed
that
to
a
needed
theory.
genderedcomponent
supplies
a maofobject-relations
The incorporation
however,represents
theory,
Femiin
the
of
theoretical
development standpointtheory.
departure
jor
with object-relations
nist standpointtheory'sidentification
theoryhas
in
two
of
the
the
focus
respects.First,object-relations
approach
changed
theory,unlikeMarxist theory,lacks a distinctionbetweensociallycontheoristsin the 1980s discovered,
structedand "true" reality.As feminist
theconceptofobjectivereality.
jettisons
theoryeffectively
object-relations
Some advocates of feministstandpointtheorysee thisas an advantage,
othersas a disadvantage.Butit becomesa problemthatmustbe continutheoryfurally negotiated.Second,theincorporationof object-relations
What was merelya troubling
therproblematizesthe issue of difference.
issue in feministstandpointtheoryis a major stumblingblock in objectrelationstheory.In object-relations
theorytheoppositionbetweentheexperienceof men and the experienceof women is the centerpieceof the
of theorizingdifferences
amongwomenand thevatheory.The difficulty
344

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

rietyof women'sexperiencesthat characterizesobject-relationstheory

now becomesa major problemin feministstandpointtheoryas well.1
In theirperceptivediscussionof theevolutionof poststructuralist
and
postmodernthought,Rosalind Coward and JohnEllis (1977) arguethat
thegroundworkforthediscursiveconceptof thesubjectthathas become
thenew paradigmof subjectivity
is alreadypresentin Marx's historically
constitutedsubject.I would like to argue a similarthesisfor the early
definitionsof feministstandpointtheory,particularlythat of Hartsock.
To establishthisthesisI interpret
Hartsock'scriteriafora standpointfrom
theperspectiveof theworkof one of themostprominentrepresentatives
of what I call the new paradigmof knowledge-Michel Foucault. Hartsock (1983c, 118) argues,first,
thatmateriallifestructures
and setslimits
to the understandingof social relations;second, that the rulingclass
structures
the materialrelationsof a societyand hence its definitionof
the "real"; and, third,thatthevisionavailableto oppressedgroupsmust
be achievedthroughstruggle.All of thistranslatesnicelyinto Foucault's
theory.First,his theoriesof sexuality,bio-power,thecarceralsociety,and
the evolutionof the Westernsubject providedetailed analyses of how
material/sociallife structuresconsciousness.Second, one of Foucault's
centralaims is to definehow and to what extenthegemonicdiscourses
(what Hartsockcalls the ideologyof the rulingclass) define"reality"in
concernedwithdefining
how subanygivensociety.Third,he is centrally
jugated knowledges (the vision of the oppressed) can be articulated
(Foucault 1980, 82).
But here the similarityends. Hartsock furtherclaims that the ruling
group'svisionis partialand perverseand thatthevisionof theoppressed
exposes the"real" relationsamonghumans.Foucaultwould counterthat
all visionsare "partial and perverse"in the sense that all knowledgeis
necessarilyfromsome perspective;we mustspeak fromsomewhereand
that somewhereis constitutiveof our knowledge.Most important,he
would insistthatthe vision of the oppressedis itselfanotherdiscourse,
not the apprehensionof "true" reality.It is undoubtedlya counterdiscourse, a discoursethat seeks to break the hold of the hegemonicdiscourse,butit is no closerto "reality"thanthediscourseit exposes. What
it maybe closerto, however,is a definition
of a less repressivesociety.
It is my contentionthat the deconstructionof the conceptof "true"
realityis alreadyimplicitin Hartsock'sdefinitionof the feministstand1 For an
see Hartsock 1983a. She argues
earlydiscussionof theproblemof difference,
thatin our societysome empiricaldifferences
are reifiedintoan ontologicallysignificant
"Difference"by therulingclass. She assertsthatfeminists
should rejectthisconstruction
of "Difference"and, rather,use empiricaldifferences
as sourcesof creativity
and power.I
findthisto be an insightful
and usefuldiscussionof difference
thathas been unfortunately
neglectedin currentdiscussions.

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

345

Hekman

TRUTH

AND METHOD

of thetranscendent
subjectwas implicit
point,just as the deconstruction
in Marx's theoryof the social constructionof consciousness.If material
life structuresconsciousness,if the different
experiencesof different
then
create
different
this
must
hold
fortheoppressedas
realities,
groups
well as the oppressor.Hartsockmightreplythattheoppressed'sconceptionof realityis truebecause it is based on a correctperceptionof material realitywhile that of the oppressoris false because it does not. But
such an argumentbegsthequestionof how a correctperceptionof mateit mustpresupposethis realityas a
rial realityis achieved.Ultimately,
as
the
which
truth
and falsityare defined.Evenin her
standard
by
given,
earlyformulationsof feministstandpointtheoryHartsock is defensive
about the accuracyof the oppressed/women's
conceptionof reality.The
theorymakes her defenseof thisposiincorporationof object-relations
tionevenmoredifficult.
If,as object-relations
theoryclaims,our relations
thenselectingone oftheseperceptions
withothersdefineour perceptions,
of
as "real" is instantly
suspect.But Hartsockalso realizesthecentrality
thispoint.Unlesswomen'sstandpointcan be shownto be truer,a reflection of realityitself,whybotherwithfeminist
analysisat all?
One ofHartsock'smajorclaimsis thatwhilethediscourseoftheruling
class is ideological,that of the oppressedis not: it reflectsthe concrete
realityof theirlives. An importantaspect of thisclaim is her assertion
that the feministstandpointis achieved,not given.The natureof their
analyoppressionis not obvious to all women;it is onlythroughfeminist
sis thatthefeminist
standpointcan be articulated.Whatthiscomesdown
to is that althoughthe feministstandpointis discursively
constituted,
thematerialrealityof women'sliveson whichit is based is not. This imis lostin muchsubsequentfeminist
standpointtheory.
portantdistinction
The beliefthatthestandpoint(s)of womenresiststhediscursiveconstitutionthatdefinesall "partialand perverse"perceptionsof realityis a mathese
standpointtheoristsin the 1980s; it structures
jor themeof feminist
methodforfeminist
to definea distinctive
theorists'efforts
analysis.
The dearest example of thisbeliefis the work of DorothySmith.In
as a Radical CritiqueofSociolherinfluential
essay"Women'sPerspective
the categoriesof sociolbetween
a
contrast
Smith
posits
ogy" (1987b),
call the lifeworld)of
life
the
and
(what
phenomenologists
everyday
ogy
women. She argues that the categoriesof sociology and sociological
For the somethodembodywhat Hartsockcalls "abstractmasculinity."
and
knower
between
as
the
defined
is
separation
objectivity
ciologist,
known,removalfromthe situatednessof knowledge.This methodand
thesecategories,she argues,obviatetheexperienceof women,an experience that is always situated,relational,and engaged.Two conclusions
follow fromthis. First,the livedrealityof women'slivesis absentfrom
the domain of sociology;it is quite literallyinvisibleto the sociologist.
346

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

Second, the woman sociologistexperiencesa bifurcatedconsciousness:

the abstract,conceptualworldshe encountersas a sociologistversusher
livedrealityas a woman (1987b, 90). The goal ofSmith'sworkis to define
a "reorganizedsociology" that would solve both of theseproblemsby
actual livedexperiences.
foregrounding
Smithoutlinesthisreorganizedsociology,what she calls a sociology
forwomen,in The EverydayWorldas Problematic(1987a). She defines
the world of sociology as a conceptualworld divorcedfromthe lived,
actual worldof everydayexperience.The worldof women,in contrast,is
"materialand local," theworldas we actuallyexperienceit.These definitions lead Smithto her definitionof "women'sstandpoint"as the point
outside textuallymediateddiscoursesin the actualityof everydaylives
(1987a, 107). The standpointof women,she claims,is relatedto Marx's
methodbutconstitutesan improvement
on it because it is "anchored" in
theeverydayworld (142). This methodconstitutes
the "Copernicanshift
in sociology"thatSmithis seeking(1979, 183).
Smithis quite clear about what she is attempting
to do in her work;
whethershe is successfulis anothermatter.She positsan absolutedichotomy betweenabstractconceptson the one hand and livedrealityon the
other,indictssociologyforinhabitingthe conceptualworld of abstractions,and advocates a move to the otherside of the dichotomy.One of
the curiousaspects of Smith'saccount is that,althoughit is inspiredby
phenomenologicalmethod,it nevertheless
departsfromthephenomenolof the natureof conceptformationand the role of
ogist'sunderstanding
conceptsin sociologicalanalysis.AlfredSchutz(1967), whose theoryof
the lifeworldis the originof Smith'sapproach,claims,like Smith,that
sociological methodmust be rooted in the lived actualityof the social
actors' reality(the lifeworld)and that the lived experiencesof social
actorsmustformthebasis of sociologicalmethodand concepts.But,unlikeSmith,Schutzargues,first,
thatthesocial actors'worldis constituted
their
that
thesociologistalso employsconcepts
by
conceptsand, second,
in orderto studythatlifeworld.Schutzclaims thatthe sociologyof the
lifeworldthathe advocatesis more "adequate" thanpositivistsociology
because,unlikethatsociology,itis rootedin theconceptsof social actors.
But he also makes it clear thathis methodis itselfa complexconceptual
apparatus with standardsof truthand accuracy,that is, a discursive
formation.
At timesSmithseemsto acknowledgethatshe is, in fact,advocatinga
conceptualshiftand not a shiftfromconceptsto reality.She asserts:"I
am not suggesting,
of course,thatsociologycan be done withoutknowing how to do it and thatwe approachour workwitha naiveconsciousness" (1979, 174). In an explicitreferenceto Schutz, she claims that
"as we evolve a discourseamong women, it crystallizesthe issues and
Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

347

Hekman

TRUTH

AND METHOD

concernsof thoseof us who got therefirstand have definedthetypesof

therelevances,thephenomenaluniverse,and theconventions
statements,
thatgiveit a social formindependentof the particularindividualswho
are activein it" (1987a, 221). Buttheseare isolatedreferences.
The overall themeof herwork is to denythatshe is eitherstudyinga conceptual
reality(theworldofthesocial actors)or fashioninga discourseand advothesisis thather approachis
catinga method.Her constantlyreiterated
to
"abstract
because
it
is rootedin "an actual matesuperior
sociology"
rial setting,an actual local and particularplace in the world" (1979,
181). What she refusesto acknowledgeis thatthat "reality"is also discursivelyconstituted.To do so would be to abandon theneat dichotomy
betweenabstractconceptsand livedrealityon whichherapproachrests.
Otherearlyformulations
of feminist
thisdistandpointtheoryreflect
theabstractworldof
chotomybetweenconceptsand reality,specifically,
men and the concreteworld of women. Hilary Rose conceptualizesthe
dichotomyin termsof thematerialrealityof women'slabor and abstract
historimasculinistscience(1983, 1986); IrisYoungcalls fora "feminist
cal materialism"rootedin "real social relations"(1980, 184-85); Mary
O'Brien looks to the reproductive
processto providethe materialbasis
forher social theory(1981); and AlisonJaggarappeals to an explicitly
Marxist understandingof the epistemologicaladvantages of the oppressedview of reality(1983). EvenJaneFlax, who laterrepudiatesany
thatcan
naiveconceptionof reality,
arguesthatwe need waysofthinking
do justiceto our experience(1983).
all oftheseaccountssharethecondifferences,
Despitetheirsignificant
victionthat the feministstandpointis rootedin a "reality"that is the
oppositeof theabstractconceptualworldinhabitedbymen,particularly
the~men of the rulingclass, and that in thisrealitylies the truthof the
humancondition.Thereare threeproblemswiththisformulation.
First,
it assumes that the dichotomybetweenconceptsand realitycan be resolved by embracingrealityand rejectingconcepts.This strategyis selfto emdefeating.The two elementsofthedichotomyare interdependent;
brace one is to acknowledgetheepistemologicalvalidityof bothsides of
the dichotomy,not to solve the problemit poses. Second,it deniesthat
constituted.
the lifeworldis, like everyotherhumanactivity,
discursively
It is a discoursedistinctfromthat of abstractscience,but a discourse
nonetheless.2
Third,as bothSchutzand Max Weberclearlyrealized,one
can argue that sociological analysisshould beginwiththe actors' concepts and thatany otherapproachwill missthe object of its study-the
lifeworld-but thatthisrequiresa specificargument.Opposingconcepts
entailsan epistemologito realityis not an argumentand, furthermore,
cal fallacy.
2

348

See Grant1993 fora similarcritique.

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

II. The challenge of difference:Redefiningthe feministstandpoint

The originalformulationsof feministstandpointtheoryreston two
assumptions:thatall knowledgeis located and situated,and thatone location,thatof the standpointof women,is privilegedbecause it provides
a vantagepointthatrevealsthetruthof social reality.It is mythesisthat
of thissecond assumptionis implicitin the firstand
the deconstruction
that as the theorydeveloped the problematicnatureof the second asAnotherwayofputtingthisis thata new
sumptioncame to theforefront.
of feminist
paradigmof knowledgewas implicitin thefirstformulations
of knowledgeas situatedand perspectival,
standpointtheory,a definition
but that these firstformulationsretainedelementsof the paradigmit
was replacing.
Epistemologistshave devotedmuchattentionto theconceptof "reality" in the past decade, offering
powerfulargumentsagainstthe notion
of a given,preconceptualrealitythatgroundsknowledge.The "linguistic
turn"of twentieth-century
philosophyand theinfluenceof hermeneutics,
and
haveall contributed
to thepresent
postmodernism, poststructuralism
about
These
are
relevant
to the
skepticism
"reality."
speculations directly
evolutionof feministstandpointtheory,an approach initiallygrounded
in just such a conceptof reality.But itwas anotherdiscussion,thediscussion of difference
withinthe feministcommunity,
thatstimulateda reassessmentoffeministstandpointtheoryin thelate 1980s and early1990s.
Originally,feministstandpointtheoristsclaimed that the standpointof
womenoffersa privilegedvantagepointforknowledge.But ifthedifferences among women are taken seriouslyand we accept the conclusion
that women occupy manydifferent
standpointsand thus inhabitmany
realities,thisthesismustbe reexamined.The currentreevaluationoffeministstandpointtheoryis an attemptto reconstitute
the theoryfromthe
These discussionsfocuson two questionsthat
perspectiveof difference.
are centralnot only to this approach but also to feministtheoryitself.
First,if,as we must,we acknowledgethat thereare manyrealitiesthat
women inhabit,how does this affectthe statusof the truthclaims that
feministsadvance? Second, if we abandon a singleaxis of analysis,the
standpointof women,and insteadtryto accommodatethemultiple,potentiallyinfinitestandpointsof diversewomen,do we not also lose the
analyticforceof our argument?Or, in otherwords,how manyaxes can
our argumentsencompassbeforetheyslip intohopelessconfusion?3The
informboth of
political implicationsof these questions, furthermore,
these arguments.If we abandon the monolithicconcept of "woman,"
what are thepossibilitiesof a cohesivefeminist
politics?
The concernboth to accommodatedifference
and preservethe analytic and politicalforceof feministtheory,specifically
feministstandpoint
3

See Bordo 1990 fora cogentstatementof thisproblem.

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

349

Hekman

TRUTH

AND

METHOD

theory,is prominentin therecentworkof Nancy Hartsock.It is obvious

thatHartsockcaresverydeeplyabout theseissues.She is painfullyaware
withinthewomen'smovement.She is
of the evilsof racism,particularly
social criticismas a forceforsoalso passionatelycommittedto feminist
cial change and is determinednot to let forcessuch as postmodernism
in a 1987 article,
erode thatpotential.These concernsemergeforcefully
for
The
of
Modernism."
point departure Hartsock'sargu"Rethinking
She assertsthatwe needto develop
women.
mentis thedifferences
among
of difference
an understanding
bycreatinga politicsin whichpreviously
the
marginalizedgroupscan name themselvesand participatein defining
termsthat structuretheirworld (1987, 189). Centralto Hartsock'sarof
understanding
gumentis theclaimthatunlesswe providea systematic
the world,we will be unable to change it. The object of her polemicin
In thepast decade
thisand severalotherrecentarticlesis postmodernism.
havecome to be closelyidentified
and multiplicity
theissuesof difference
She
with postmodernism.Hartsock wants to rejectthis identification.
to claim thatthedifferences
wantsto valorizedifference,
amongwomen
while at the same time
and practically,
both theoretically
are significant
on thegroundsthatit obviatesthepossibilityof
rejectingpostmodernism
thesystemicknowledgethatis necessaryforsocial change.
and to retainat least
Hartsock's effortsboth to valorize difference
world
the
the
of
is,"producesome
some notionof realityand truth,
"way
altersthebasic
she
In
odd results. "RethinkingModernism," significantly
that
of
feminist
thesis
althoughwomen
standpointtheoryby asserting
men are (1987,
Eurocentric
not
a
are
unitarygroup,white,ruling-class,
is
as
the
to
referred
now
The
"center," definedas uni192).
rulingclass,
are definedas heterogethe
the
on
those
while
"others,"
periphery,
tary,
neous. Hartsock'sargumentis thatwe mustcreatea politicsthatletsthe
"others"intothecenter,a centerthat,she claims,will "obviously"look
when occupied by women and men of color (201). Hartsock's
different
solutionraisessome troublingquestions.It positsa centerthatis heterogeneous ratherthanhomogeneous,but thissuggeststhatit maynot be a
"center"at all. We mightalso ask whether,ifthe "others"have moved
We can, I
eliminatesthe periphery.
into the center,thismove effectively
think,assume thatHartsockwould not endorsea politicsin whichany
to retaintheconceptof "cengroupwas marginalized.But it is difficult
conceptof periphery.4
ter,"as she does, withouta corresponding
All of thesequestionscould be quite easilyeliminatedby abandoning
the center/periphery
dichotomy.But Hartsock is adamantlyopposed to
thismove.Those of us who have been constitutedas "other,"she states,
entailed
4 BarOn 1993 offers
accountoftheepistemological
an excellent
by
problems
andthatofthecenter/margin
theclaimto epistemic
dichotomy.
privilege
350

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

mustinsiston a world in whichwe are at the centerratherthan the peThe postmoderns,she claims,who want to eliminatethe center,
riphery.
She also claimsthattheydeny
therebydenyus our rightof self-definition.
us the rightto speak the truthabout our subjugation,obviatingthevery
possibilityof knowledgeand truth.Informingall of Hartsock's recent
workis a fundamentaldichotomy:eitherwe havesystemicknowledgeof
thewaytheworldis or we haveno knowledge,no truth,and no politics.
For Hartsock,postmodernism
the second termof thisdichotrepresents
I
could
thattruth,knowledge,and
(1990).
Hartsock,
omy
argue,against
politicsare possiblewithoutan absolutegroundingand thatsome postmodernwritersmake this argumentquite persuasively.
But I would like
to examineHartsock'spositionfroma different
angle. Her fearsforthe
futureof feministanalysisare not unfounded.If,as she realizeswe must,
feminismabandons thefeminist
standpointand, withit,thecorrectview
of reality,thenwe are in dangerof abandoningthe whole pointof feminist analysisand politics:revealingthe oppressionof "women" and arguing for a less repressivesociety.If thereare multiplefeministstandpoints,thentheremustbe multipletruthsand multiplerealities.This is a
difficult
positionforthosewho wantto changetheworldaccordingto a
new image.
I would argue thatHartsockhas definedtheproblemcorrectlybut is
pursuinga solution in the wrong direction.She wants to embracethe
"situatedknowledges"thatHaraway and othershave theorized,but she
cannot accept the logical consequence of this position: that no peris epistemologically
spective/standpoint
privileged.She wantsto retaina
notion of privilegedknowledgethat can accommodate both diversity
and locatedness.But herattemptsto achievethisgoal are not successful.
"Situatedknowledges,"she claims,are "located in a particulartimeand
fromnoplace. They are therefore
partial. They do not see everything
where but theydo see some thingsfromsomewhere."Borrowingpostmodernterminology,
she refersto theknowledgesproducedfromthevarious subjectpositionsof different
womenas "the epistemologiesof these
markedsubjectivities."She thengoes on to argue: "The strugglesthey
representand express,if made self-conscious,can go beyondeffortsat
survivalto recognizethe centrality
of systemicpower relations"(198990, 28-30). What thisformulationrequiresis a sustainedargumentfor
how such systemicknowledgeis possible. But such an argumentis not
forthcoming.
Other feministstandpointtheoristshave also attemptedto deal with
the challengeof difference
and its implicationsforthe truthclaims of
the feministstandpoint.DorothySmith(1990a, 1990b) getsaround the
fiat:she defines"women'sactually
problemof difference
by definitional
livedexperience"as a categorythatencompassesthediversity
of women's
Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

351

Hekman

TRUTH

AND

METHOD

lives and activities.She thenopposes thiscategoryto the abstractconcepts of sociological analysis,contrastingthe "ideological" categories
of thesociologistto "what actuallyhappened"-the "primarynarrative"
(1990a, 157). But the method that she derivesfromthis dichotomy
is flawedand incomplete.First,despite the unmistakableinfluenceof
Schutz'swork, Smithdoes not offerany argumentforwhythe located
knowledgeofwomenis superiorto theabstractknowledgeofthesocioloto
gist;thisis assumedto be obvious. Second,despitefrequentreferences
thewomFoucaultand his theoryof discourse,Smithrefusesto identify
discursiveformation.She ofen's standpointas a knowledge-producing
fersa detaileddiscussionof how the sociologist'sdiscursiveformations
of state power.At timesshe comes close to
constitutethe instruments
thatthediscoursethatwomenhavedevelopedabout theirlived
admitting
reality,a discoursethat includesconceptssuch as rape, sexual harassshe shiesawayfrom
is also constituted.But ultimately
ment,and battery,
thisconclusion.Like Hartsock,she continuesto privilegethestandpoint
theknowlof women because she assumesthatwithoutsuch privileging
edge womenclaim loses itsnecessarygrounding.
she
PatriciaHill Collinshas a particularstakein theorizingdifference:
wantsto accountfortheunique standpointof black women.She defines
hergoal, she states,
herproblemin thecontextof theissue of difference:
is to articulatethe unique aspectsof black women'sstandpointwithout
among black women. She tacklesthis problem
denyingthe differences
by claiming,followingHartsock,thatthe black feministstandpointshe
bythe
articulates,althoughrootedin everyday
experiences,is constructed
own
of
her
One
of
the
on
that
theoristswho reflect
goals
experience.
women
that
constiblack
of
the
common
to
define
experiences
theoryis
tutetheiruniquestandpoint(1989; 1990, 208-21). Collinsdeals withthe
issue of the truthstatusof the black feministstandpointin an
difficult
ambiguousway.In an earlyarticleshe claims "objectivity"forthe "outsiderwithin"statusof blackwomen(1986, 15). In hermorerecentwork,
however,Collins retreatsfromthisclaim. In Black FeministThoughtshe
appeals to Donna Haraway'sconceptof standpointas themostvalid and
concludesthat"a Black women'sstandpointis onlyone angleof vision,"
ofHara "partialperspective"(1990, 234). Butdespiteherendorsement
of
full
the
embrace
to
is
Collins
implications
unwilling
away'sposition,
situatedknowledge.She rejectsthe claim thatthe perspectiveof the opwhich
pressedyields "absolute truth,"but she also rejects"relativism,"
she definesas the claim thatall visionsare equal (1990, 235). Her final
She
conceptof objectivity.
positionholds out some hope fora redefined
who develop knowledgeclaimsthatcan acassertsthat black feminists
and whitemasculinistepiscommodatebothblackfeminist
epistemology
the
elusive
to
goal of generatingsotemology"may have founda route
352

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

called objectivegeneralizationsthat can stand as universaltruth."The

ideas thatare validatedby different
standpoints,she concludes,produce
"themostobjectivetruths"(1989, 773).
Other than Haraway herself,the onlyprominentfeministstandpoint
theoristto embracefullywhat Collins labels the "relativist"positionis
Sara Ruddick.CitingWittgenstein
as her intellectualinfluence,Ruddick
claimsthatfeminismchallengesthe universality
imperativeof masculine
In
her
of
"Maternal
discussion
(1989,
128).
thinking
Thinkingas a FeministStandpoint,"Ruddickappeals to bothHartsockand Foucault,apparentlyseeingno contradictionbetweenHartsock'sdefinitionof the feminist standpointand Foucault'stheoryof subjugatedknowledges(130).
She concludes,"AlthoughI count myselfamong standpointtheorists,I
do not take the finalstep that some appear to take of claimingforone
standpointa truththatis exhaustiveand absolute.... AlthoughI envision a worldorganizedbythevalues of caringlabor,I cannotidentify
the
grounds,reason,or god thatwould legitimatethatvision" (135).5
Ruddick'ssolutionto the problemof difference
and privilegewould
not satisfymanyfeminist
theorists.Like Collins and Hartsock,fewfeminist theoristsare contentto definethe feministstandpointas simplya
"different
voice" (or voices),one perspectiveamongmany.The difficulties
of redefining
feministstandpointtheoryin lightof the epistemological
issues raised by difference
and the challengesto "reality"are most fully
exploredin the work of Sandra Harding.In her influentialThe Science
Question in Feminism(1986) Harding definesthree feministepistemologies: feministempiricism,feministstandpointtheory,and feminist
postmodernism.Although sympatheticto standpointepistemologies,
Harding is persuadedthattherecannot be one feministstandpoint;the
situationsof womenare too diverse.Yet she also sees problemswiththe
postmodernalternative.On herreading,postmodernism
positsfractured
an
and
the
of
identities, apoliticalapproach,
rejection anykindof knowlthat
results
in
an
absolute
relativism.
In thisbook, Hardingavoids
edge
one
over
another
choosing
epistemology
by arguingforthenecessaryinof
feminist
theories.
Coherent
theories
in an incoherentworld,
stability
she concludes,are eithersilly,uninteresting,
or oppressive(1986, 164).
In WhoseScience?WhoseKnowledge?(1991), Hardingappears to reverseher position by fashioninga coherenttheoryforfeministscience.
The theoryshe offers,however,is a blend of diverseelementsand thus
continuestheeclecticspiritof herearlierbook. The aim of the book, she
states,is not to resolveall tensionsand contradictions
betweenfeminism
and Westernscience but to "advance more usefulways for us to think
5 For otherrecentaccountsof
standpointtheory,see Winant1987; Aptheker1989;
Stanleyand Wise 1990; and Campbell 1994.

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

353

Hekman

TRUTH

AND METHOD

about and plan theirfutureencounters"(xi). Hardingdefinesherposition

as "a postmodernist
committed
standpointapproachthatis nevertheless
to rethinkingand revisingsome importantnotions fromconventional
metatheoriesof science" (49). In thecourseof developingherapproach,
of standpointtheory,
Harding offersboth a critiqueand a redefinition
"the
of
the
in
developing
logic
standpointtheory waysthatmorevigorit
from
its
modernist
ouslypull away
originsand moreclearlyenableitto
advance some postmodernist
goals" (106). For Harding,standpointtheis
attractive
because
it
offers
an alternative
to a crucialand seemingly
ory
irresolvabledichotomyfacingfeminist
essentialism
versusrelativtheory:
ism.Her rejectionof one feminist
avoids
the
standpoint
dangerof essenis defeatedbyherclaimthatwe mustinsiston an objectialism;relativism
tivelocation-women's lives-for theplace whereresearchshould begin
(134-42). But as hertheoryunfoldsit becomesclear thatHardingdoes
not so muchdeconstructthisdichotomyas locate herpositionalong the
continuumit creates.
The ubiquitous issue of relativismleads Harding to her most signiShe beficantcontributionto standpointtheory:"strongobjectivity."
and differpluralism,relativism,
gins by notingthat "althoughdiversity,
ence have theirvaluable and politicaluses, embracingthemresolvesthe
conflictto almost no one's satisfacpolitical-scientific-epistemological
she argues,embracehistoricaltion" (140). Standpointepistemologists,
cultural-sociologicalrelativismwhile rejecting judgmental or epistemologicalrelativism(142). The "strongobjectivity"she advocates
recognizesthe social situatednessof all knowledgebut also requires"a
criticalevaluationto determinewhichsocial situationstendto generate
thatHarding
themostobjectiveknowledgeclaims" (142). It is significant
followstraditionalstandpointepistemologyin assumingthatthehigher
thelevelofoppression,themoreobjectivetheaccount:"It shouldbe clear
that if it is beneficialto startresearch,scholarshipand theoryin white
women'ssituations,thenwe shouldbe able to learnevenmoreabout the
social and naturalordersifwe startfromthesituationsof womenin devalued and oppressedraces,classes and cultures"(179-80).
despiteitshistorHardingarguesforkeepingtheconceptofobjectivity
ical associationswithmasculinistsciencebecauseofits"gloriousintellecsheadvocatesdepartsfrom
tual history"(160). The conceptofobjectivity
in thatit does not layclaimto "truebeliefs"or
themasculinistdefinition
"transhistorical
privilege."Butitalso retainsone importantaspectofthat
definition:"Startingresearchin women's lives leads to socially constructedclaims that are less false-less partialand distorted-than are
claimsthatresultifone startsfromthelives
the(also sociallyconstructed)
of men in the dominantgroups" (185). The "less false stories"Harduniversalson theone hand
ingadvocatesmediatebetweentranshistorical
354

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

and absolute relativismon the other,forminga kind of middleground

betweenthe polaritiesof this dichotomy.Harding intendsthis middle
positions.
groundto be a critiqueof postmodernand poststructuralist
The postmodernists,
Hardingdeclares,assumethatgivingup on thegoal
of tellingone truestoryabout realityentailsgivingup on tellingless false
stories (187), a position that is unlikelyto satisfyfeminists'desire to
know "how theworldis" (304).
Once more,I could argue that Harding,like Hartsock,misinterprets
of knowledgeand thatat least one "postmodthepostmoderndefinition
in tellingstoriesthatwill resultin
ern" writer,Foucault,is veryinterested
tack in
a less oppressivesocial order.But, again, I will take a different
two
contains
of
reassessment
criticism.
theory
standpoint
Harding's
my
seriousoversights.
First,she arguesthatstartingresearchfromthereality
those of women who are also oppressedby
of women'slives,preferably
race and class, will lead to a moreobjectiveaccountof social reality.Like
Hartsock,Hardingoffersno argumentas to whythisis thecase. Particularlyfromthe vantagepointof the 1990s, it is not enoughsimplyto assume that Marx got it righton such a crucial point. And, like Smith,
Hardingdoes not acknowledgethat"therealityofwomen'slives"is itself
a sociallyconstructeddiscursiveformation.It is a discoursethathas been
constructed,at least in part,by feministstandpointtheoristswho define
it as the groundof theirmethod.The factthat it is closelytied to the
social actors'own conceptsand providesa counterto thehegemonicdiscourseof masculinistsciencemakesitno less a discourse.Feministstandpoint theorycan and, I argue,should be definedas a counterhegemonic
discoursethatworksto destabilizehegemonicdiscourse.But thiscan be
achievedwithoutdenyingthatit is a discourseor accordingit epistemological privilege.
Second, all of Harding'stalk of "less false stories,""less partial and
perverseaccounts,"and more "objective" researchnecessarilypresupeven-that establishesstanposes a shareddiscourse-a metanarrative,
dards by whichthesejudgmentscan be validated.Yet the centerpieceof
Harding'scritiqueof masculinistscienceis thedenial of thepossibilityof
such a metanarrative.
She seems to assume thatwhen feministscholars
offertheir"less false stories"theywill be universallyacknowledgedas
such. This assumptionfails both practicallyand theoretically.
It seems
obvious
that
within
the
masculinist
discourse
of
science
the
abundantly
accountsof feministstandpointtheoristshave not been judged "better"
than conventionalscientificaccounts. On the contrary,
the scientificestablishmenthas devoted much effortto discreditingfeministclaims.
Comparativestatementssuch as those Harding advances requireshared
standardsof judgment;no such standardsbridgethe gap betweenfeminist and masculinistscience. It is ironicthat Harding'spolemic against
Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

355

Hekman

TRUTH

AND METHOD

of masculinistscience ultimatelyrelieson the reconthe metanarrative

structionof a similarstandardforitsvalidity.
III. Truthsand methods: Toward a new paradigm
When feministstandpointtheoryemergedin the early 1980s, it appeared to be exactlywhat the feministmovementneeded: a methodfor
namingtheoppressionof womengroundedin thetruthofwomen'slives.
of
Standpointtheoryconstituteda challengeto themasculinistdefinition
truthand methodembodiedin modernWesternscienceand epistemology.It establishedan alternativevisionof truthand, withit, hope fora
less repressivesociety.But the theoreticaltensionsimplicitin the theory
The contradictionbetweensocial construcsoon came to the forefront.
tionistand absolutistconceptionsof truththatcharacterizesMarx's thestandpointtheory.As thetheorydeveloryweretranslatedinto feminist
should
oped in thelate 1980s and early1990s questionsof how feminists
theorizedifferences
among women and the status of feminism'struth
claims became impossibleto ignore-and equally impossibleto answer
withintheconfinesof theoriginaltheory.
visionof truth
I arguethatalthoughit was conceivedas an alternative
and reality,thisvisiondoes not constitutethetheoreticallegacyof femicenniststandpointtheory.Throughoutthesecondhalfof thetwentieth
movement
a
in
turya paradigmshifthas been underway epistemology,
froman absolutist,subject-centered
conceptionof truthto a conception
and
of truthas situated,perspectival, discursive.It is mycontention,
first,
of thisparadigm
thatfeminismwas and continuesto be at the forefront
an imshiftand, second,thatfeminist
standpointtheoryhas contributed
the
duBecause
of
feminist
within
to
that
shift
dimension
theory.
portant
alisticconceptionof truthand realitythatcharacterizedits originalformulation,feminist
standpointtheoryhas had theeffectofproblematizing
absolutesand universals,focusingattentioninsteadon thesituated,local,
of knowledge.
and communalconstitution
feminist
to interpret
Anotherway of puttingthisis thatin attempting
standFeminist
not
Marx.
to
look
we
should
Kuhn,
standpointtheory,
knowland
of
of
an
is
knowledge
emerging
paradigm
pointtheory part
edge productionthat constitutesan epistemologicalbreak with modernism.Feministstandpointtheorydefinesknowledgeas particularrather
than universal;it jettisonsthe neutralobserverof modernistepistemology; it definessubjectsas constructedby relationalforcesratherthanas
As feministstandpointtheoryhas developed,the original
transcendent.
and universaltruthhas dissolved.But
tensionbetweensocial construction
one
that this has been accomplished,not by privileging
it is significant
The
itself.
the
side of the dichotomy,but by deconstructing dichotomy
356

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

new paradigmofknowledgeofwhichfeminist
standpointtheoryis a part
involvesrejectingthe definition
of knowledgeand truthas eitheruniversal or relativein favorof a conceptionof all knowledgeas situatedand
discursive.
This new paradigmof knowledgenecessarilydefinesa new approach
to politics.Modernistepistemology
definespoliticsin termsofthedichotomies thatinformit. Thus forthe modernist,politicsmustbe grounded
in absolute,universalprinciplesand enacted by politicalagentsdefined
as universalsubjects.Under the new paradigm,politicsis definedas a
local and situatedactivityundertakenbydiscursively
constituted
subjects.
Political resistance,furthermore,
is definedas challengingthe hegemonic discoursethat writesa particularscriptfora certaincategoryof
subjects.Resistanceis effectedby employingotherdiscursiveformations
to oppose thatscript,not by appealingto universalsubjectivity
or absoluteprinciples.
As a way of illustrating
mythesisthata new paradigmis emerging,it
is usefulto look at the threeepistemicpositionsthatHardingdefinesin
her 1986 book. In the course of a decade the distinctionsbetweenthese
categorieshave nearlycollapsed. Feministempiricismhas been radically
redefinedby epistemologists
such as LynnHankinsonNelson and Helen
ofempiricism
froma femLongino.Nelson (1990) providesa redefinition
inistperspective
thatconformsto whatI call thenew paradigmof knowledge. Relyingon theworkof W. V. Quine, Nelson definesan empiricism
in which,as she puts it, the world matters,but scientificcommunities
produceknowledge.Her principalthesisis thatit is not individualsbut
communitieswho know.Nelson'sempiricisminvolvesevidence,but it is
evidencedefinedand constrainedbypublic standards,not data observed
froman Archimedeanpointbya neutralobserver.6
Longinooffersa similar argumentin Scienceas Social Knowledge(1990). She definesherposition as "contextualempiricism,"a view of science in which scientific
is a functionof community
knowledgeis sociallycreatedand objectivity
It
is
that
both
Nelson
and
practices.
significant
Longinorejectwhat they
call "relativism,"
but theydo so by appealingto widelysharedbut communal-that is, constructed-standardsof evidence.
in blurringthe distinctionbeHardingherselfhas been instrumental
tweenfeministstandpointtheoryand feministpostmodernism
withher
advocacyof "a postmodernist
standpointapproach."The principaltheme
of feministstandpointtheory,thatknowledgeis situatedin the material
livesof social actors,has become thedefinitive
characteristic
not onlyof
feminists
influenced
but of feminist
bypostmodernism
theoryas a whole.
The majordistinction
betweenpostmodernism
and standpointtheory,
the
6

See Tuana 1991 fora compatibleanalysisof Nelson.

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

357

Hekman

TRUTH

AND

METHOD

claim of privilegedknowledgeand one truereality,has been almostentirelyabandoned.BothHartsockand Hardingradicallymodifytheclaim

to privilegedknowledge. Ruddick abandons any claim to privileged
knowledgeat all. Flax, an earlyproponentof the feministstandpoint,
and the multipletruthsit
has enthusiastically
embracedpostmodernism
entails.The notion of a feministstandpointthat is truerthan previous
(male) ones, she now claims,restson problematicand unexaminedasis whatLorraine
sumptions(1990, 56).7Whatthesetheoristsare effecting
Code calls "remappingtheepistemicterrainintonumerousfluidconverabout thisremapping,
sations" (1991, 309). What is significant
however,
is that for all of thesetheorists,definingrealityas sociallyconstructed
and multipledoes not obviatebut,rather,facilitatescriticalanalysis.
theoristwho has done themostto definewhatI am callThe feminist
ing the new paradigmof truthand methodis Donna Haraway.Her famous essay "A ManifestoforCyborgs,"eventhoughit does not mention
feministstandpointtheory,can be read as an attemptto refashionthat
theoryin lightof thechallengeto privilegedreality.Harawayasks,What
look like?Whatkind
would anotherpoliticalmythforsocialistfeminism
and socialist
selvesand stillbe effective
of politicscan embracefractured
feminist?(1990, 199). Implicitin thesequestionsis theassumptionthat
the "myth"of socialistfeminism-feminist
standpointtheory-cannot
be sustained and that feministsmust look for another.What is also
implicitis that,forHaraway,what we mustlook foris not "truth"and
"reality"but,rather,anotherstory."Women'sexperience,"sheclaims,"is
a fictionand a factof the most crucial,politicalkind. Liberationrests
on the constructionof consciousness,the imaginativeapprehension,of
oppression,and so of possibility"(191).
In an equallyfamousarticle,"SituatedKnowledges,"Harawayrelates
her positiondirectlyto feministstandpointtheory:"There is no single
feministstandpointbecause our maps requiretoo manydimensionsfor
thatmetaphorto groundour visions.But the feministstandpointtheorists'goal of an epistemologyand politicsof engaged,accountablepositioningremainseminentlypotent.The goal is betteraccounts of the
world, that is, 'science"' (1988, 590). In this passage Haraway defines
whatI see as thecentralproblemfacingfeminist
theorytoday:givenmuland thenecessityof
of
construction
the
social
"reality,"
tiplestandpoints,
an engagedpoliticalposition,how can we talk about "betteraccountsof
the world," "less false stories"?And, indeed, how can we talk about
of standpointsis, quite
accounts of the world at all if the multiplicity
theorists
endless?In thepast severalyears,a numberof feminist
literally,
be
what
havetriedto answerthesequestionsbyarticulating
might called
7

358

SeealsoHirschmann
1992;andBarOn 1993.

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

"quasi-universals."Martha Nussbaum (1992) and Susan Moller Okin

(1994) havearguedfora revivalof thenotionof basic humanneeds and
a commonhumanityon whichto groundethicsand feminist
theory.They
argue,as anothertheoristputsit,that"successfulcoalitionsand political
action requirea substantialconcept of common humanitygroundedin
an explicitnotionofhumannature"(Kay 1994, 21). These authorsargue
forwhat theycall a "rich" and historicallysituatedconcept of human
nature.But implicitin theseargumentsis the assumptionthatwe need a
thatprovidesstanconcept of how the world reallyis, a metanarrative
dardsforcross-cultural
if
we
are
to
fashion
a feminist,
or any
judgments,
kindof,politics.
In conclusion,I would like to suggestanotheranswerto these questions.The problemof constructing
a viablemethodforfeminist
analysis,
a methodthatalso providesthe basis fora feministpolitics,is twofold.
of feminist
First,ifwe take themultiplicity
standpointsto itslogicalconclusion,coherentanalysisbecomesimpossiblebecause we havetoo many
axes of analysis.Ultimately,
everywoman is unique; ifwe analyzeeach in
her uniqueness,systemicanalysisis obviated. So is feministpolitics:we
lose the abilityeven to speak forcertaincategoriesof women. Second,
if we acknowledgemultiplerealities,multiplestandpoints,how do we
discriminate
amongthem?How do we selecttheperspectivesand standpointsthatare usefulto us, thatwill help us achieveour theoreticaland
practicalgoals, or are we necessarilycondemnedto the "absoluterelativism" thatsome criticsfear?
In discussingtheproblemsof developinga methodforfeministanalysis,JaneFlax argues,"Anyfeminist
standpointwill necessarilybe partial.
Thinkingabout women may illuminatesome aspects of a societythat
have been previouslysuppressedby the dominantview. But none of us
can speak for'woman' because no such personexists" (1990, 56). The
problemhere,as Flax realizes,is not to replacethe absolutismimplicit
in the claim to the feministstandpointwith a relativisticstance but to
deconstructthe dichotomy,
to articulatea methodand, hence,a politics,
I suggestthatthe methodological
groundedin a different
epistemology.
tool thatmeetstheserequirements,
a tool thatfitsthemethodologicaland
epistemologicalneeds of feminismat this juncture,can be found in a
sourcerarelyemployedin feminist
discussions:Weber'smethodologyand,
his conceptof theideal type.Weber'smethodologyhas many
specifically,
advantagesforthe currentdebate overfeministmethodology.Most fundamentalis thathis approach presupposesthatsocial analysisis always
undertakenby situated,engagedagentswho livein a discursively
constitutedworld.Althougha rangeof contemporary
theorists-mostnotably
Foucault-share this presumption,Weber'sposition supplies threeelementsthatthesecontemporary
approacheslack. First,Weberprovidesa
Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

359

Hekman

TRUTH

AND

METHOD

detailedanalysisof the conceptualtool thatcan effectthisanalysis:the

ideal type.Second, he providesextensiveexamplesof how thisconcept
operatesin empiricalanalysis.Third,he developsan elaboratejustification forthepartialand circumscribed
approachhe advocates.
At the root of Weber'sconceptof the ideal typeis his claim that no
aspect of social realitycan be apprehendedwithoutpresuppositions:"As
us in
soon as we attemptto reflectabout theway in whichlifeconfronts
of sucimmediateconcretesituations,it presentsan infinite
multiplicity
emergingand disappearingevents"(1949, 72).
cessivelyand coexistently
Weberarguesthatwe bringorderto thismultiplicity
byrelyingon values
culturalvalues: "Order is broughtinto thischaos only
and, specifically,
on theconditionthatin everycase onlya partof concreterealityis interto us, becauseonlyitis relatedto theculturalvalues
estingand significant
withwhichwe approachreality"(78; emphasisin original).The cultural
of
values of a society,thus,imposean initialorderingof themultiplicity
possiblemeaningsthatconfrontsocial actors.ButWeberarguesthatvalues also structurethe meaningapprehensionof the social scientist.It is
individualvalue choice that guides the selectionof a
the investigator's
evaluativeideas, there
subject of analysis: "Withoutthe investigator's
and no meaningful
of
would be no principleof selection subject-matter
the investigator's
of
The
result
knowledgeof the concretereality"(82).
"ideal
the
calls
Weber
that
choice is theconceptualtool
type":"Anideal
more pointsof
of
one
or
accentuation
the
one-sided
typeis formedby
of
a
the
view and by
greatmanydiffuse,discrete,moreor less
synthesis
concreteindividualphenomena,which
absent
presentand occasionally
are arrangedaccordingto one-sidedlyemphasizedviewpointsintoa unifiedanalyticconstruct"(90; emphasisin original).8
of realFor Weber,ideal typesare neitherhypothesesnor descriptions
neither
are
be
can
which
to
but
compared;they
reality
"yardsticks"
ity
historicalrealitynor "true reality"but are purelylimitingconceptsor
"utopias"; thepurposeofideal typesis to providea meansofcomparison
ofthatreality(90withconcreterealityin orderto revealthesignificance
We
cannot
is
crucial.
of
Weber's
This
justifyideal
concept
93).
aspect
No consocial
that
reality.
accurately
reproduce
they
typesby claiming
neither
But
and
are
that-all
do
can
perspectival.
partial
positions
cept
can we justifyideal typeson thegroundsthattheyuncovertheuniversal
truthof social reality,thattheyhave the statusof the universallaws of
the naturalsciences.Universallaws, Weber claims,can revealnothing
wantto explain:themeaningand significance
aboutwhatsocial scientists
of social reality.Unlikeuniversallaws, ideal typescannot be refutedby
cases revealstheirrelecases; thediscoveryofcontradictory
contradictory
8

360

SeeHekman1983,1995.

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

vance of theconceptto theproblemat hand,not its "error"(1975, 190).

The onlyjustification
we can appeal to, Weberconcludes,is significance:
an ideal typeis valid ifit helpsus understandsocial reality.
Weber'sconceptof theideal typecan be usefulin explainingtheepistemologicalstatusof feministresearch.First,it makesexplicitthatno perspectiveis total,all are partial;ideal typesare, in his words,one-sided.
Knowledgeis alwayssituatedin a particularlocality,theparticularstandpoint of theseparticularwomen. Second, it specifiesthatthe subjectof
It is thevalues
any analysisis dictatedbythe interestof theinvestigator.
of feminist
researchersand theirpoliticalgoals thathavemotivatedthem
to investigateissues like wife battery,rape, incest,and even the origins
of patriarchyitself.In Webers terminology,
what feministsocial science
has accomplishedis to createa set of ideal typesthatallow us to "see" a
different
social world. Carole Pateman's"sexual contract"(1988), Arlie
Hochschild's"second shift"(1989), and Karen Sacks's "centerwoman"
(1988) are but a few examples of this conceptualset. Third,the ideal
typerestson the assumptionthatwhat the social researcherstudies,the
activitiesand conceptsof social actors, is alreadyconstituted;it is, in
postmodernjargon,a discursiveformationthatconstitutes"reality"for
thosewho participatein it.This is a crucialpointforthecritiqueof many
versionsof feministstandpointtheory.Hartsock,Smith,and even,occasionally,Hardingmake themistakeof assumingthatwomen'sdailylives
constitutea givenrealitythatprovidesthenecessarygroundingforfeministtheory.Weber'sconceptemphasizesthat,likeall otheraspectsof social life,women'sdailylifeis a realityconstitutedby sharedconcepts.
The epistemologyof Weber'sideal typealso providesan answerto the
theoristshave raised.
chargeof "absoluterelativism"thatmanyfeminist
The problemis this: How do we convincenonfeminists
that the ideal
of
feminist
informed
the
values
of feminist
types
analysis,concepts
by
are usefuland insightful?
How do we constructan argument
researchers,
fortheseideal typesratherthanfortheinfinite
varietyof conceptsthatis
to which we can
possible? Weber argues that thereis no metanarrative
appeal to justifyour value choices. Thus he would argue thatthe values
that lead feministsto investigatethe workingsof patriarchycannot be
shownto be "objectively"correct.ButWeberdoes havean answerto this
problem.Althoughhe argues that values are necessarilyirreconcilable,
he maintainsthat the logic of analysisitselfrestson universalgrounds
(1949, 58). His argumentis thatalthoughwe cannotagreethatwe should
be studyinga particulartopic-this is a value choice-we can agree on
whetherthe analysisis logical. I would not offerquite so optimistican
answer.Webers neat separationbetweenfactsand values is unfeasible.
Butthisneed not be cause fordespair.Wittgenstein
(1958) offersan argumentthatcan be usefulhere.He assertsthatour societyis held together
Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

361

Hekman

TRUTH

AND

METHOD

by certainbasic values and assumptionsthatconstitutewhat he calls "a

formoflife";one oftheseassumptionsis a verybroadlybased and loosely
definedconcept of what constitutesa persuasiveargument.Because of
theseassumptionsare masdominationof patriarchy,
the long-standing
feminists
have
as
culinist;rationality, many
argued,is genderedmasculine. But it does not followthat feministscannot use thesemasculinist
them.
assumptionsfortheirown purposesand, in so doing,transform
of pathattheinstitutions
We maynot be able to persuadenonfeminists
triarchyare evil and should be dismantled.But we may be, and indeed
have been,able to persuadethem,throughthe use of skillfularguments,
thatsexual harassment,maritalrape,and wifebatteryshould be defined
as crimes.
I am not claimingthattheideal typesolvesall theepistemologicaland
methodologicalproblemsof feministtheory.I am claimingthat it is
highlyappropriateto some of the problemsthat feministtheoryis curproblemsraisedin largepartbythedevelopmentand
rentlyconfronting,
evolutionof feministstandpointtheory.The ideal typeemphasizesthat
eithernormativeor methodological,to which
thereis no metanarrative,
we can appeal. Nor is therea truthabout social totalitythatis waitingto
be discovered.But this does not mean that the systemicanalysisof the
institutionsof patriarchyis necessarilyprecluded.Weber'sideal type
undermakesit clearthatsocial analysisis a necessarilypoliticalactivity,
world
constituted
in
a
takenby agentswho live
by languageand, hence,
values. We engagein specificanalysesbecause we are committedto certain values. These values dictatethatcertainanalysesare trivialand others are important;all are not equal.9 It is our values,then,thatsave us
ofmodernismso feared.
fromthe"absoluterelativism"thatthedefenders
correctones. On
be
the
to
values
their
cannot
Feminists
objectively
prove
this point the postmodernsare correct:we live in a world devoid of a
But we can offerpersuasiveargumentsin denormativemetanarrative.
fenseof our values and thepoliticstheyentail.Some of thesearguments
have been successfulin
will be persuasive:in the past decades feminists
economicand political
of
the
to
patriarchal
beginning change parameters
But byadvancing
Otherargumentswill not be persuasive.10
institutions.
both persuasiveand unpersuasivearguments,feministsare, in the process, changingthenormsof what constitutesan argument.
I think that recastingfeministstandpointtheoryin termsof the
to concontribution
epistemologyoftheideal typecan makea significant
temporaryfeministtheory.Such a recastingwould involvedefiningthe
feministstandpointas situatedand engagedknowledge,as a place from
9 Flax 1993 makesa similarargument.
10MacKinnon'santipornography
argument(1987) is a notableexample.
362

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

can articulate
whichfeminists
a counterhegemonic
discourseand argue
fora lessrepressive
Women
from
society.
speak
multiple
prostandpoints,
Butthisdoesnotprevent
womenfrom
comducingmultiple
knowledges.
inthetwentito workforspecific
ingtogether
politicalgoals."tFeminists
ethcentury
havedoneprecisely
thisandhave,as a consequence,
changed
thelanguagegameofpolitics.And,ultimately,
thisis thepointoffeministtheory.
Departmentof PoliticalScience
University
of Texas at Arlington
References
Bettina.1989. TapestriesofLife: Women'sWork,Women'sConsciousAptheker,
ness and theMeaningof Daily Experience.Amherst:University
of MassachusettsPress.
Bar On, Bat-Ami.1993. "Marginalityand EpistemicPrivilege."In FeministEpistemologies,ed. Linda Alcoffand ElizabethPotter,83-100. New York: Routledge.
In
Bordo, Susan. 1990. "Feminism,Postmodernism,and Gender-Skepticism."
ed. Linda Nicholson, 133-76. New York: RoutFeminism/Postmodernism,
ledge.
Campbell, Richmond. 1994. "The Virtuesof FeministEmpiricism."Hypatia
9(1):90-115.

1991. WhatCanSheKnow?Feminist
andtheConstrucCode,Lorraine.
Theory

tionof Knowledge.Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversity

Press.
Collins,PatriciaHill. 1986. "Learningfromthe OutsiderWithin:The Sociological Significance
of Black FeministThought."Social Problems33(6):14-32.
.1989. "The Social Constructionof Black FeministThought."Signs:Journal of Womenin Cultureand Society14(4):745-73.
.1990. Black FeministThought.Boston:UnwinHyman.
Coward, Rosalind, and JohnEllis. 1977. Language and Materialism:Developmentsin Semiologyand the Theory of the Subject. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Flax, Jane. 1983. "PoliticalPhilosophyand the PatriarchalUnconscious:A PsychoanalyticPerspectiveon Epistemologyand Metaphysics."In Harding and
Hintikka1983, 245-81.
. 1990. "Postmodernismand Gender Relations in FeministTheory."In
ed. Linda Nicholson,39-61. New York:Routledge.
Feminism/Postmodernism,

.1993. DisputedSubjects:
PoliticsandPhilosoEssaysonPsychoanalysis,

phy.New York: Routledge.

New York:Pantheon.
Foucault,Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge.

'1 In a similar
Grantassertsthatpoliticalsimilarities
can be cultiargument,
Judith
vatedto helpfeminists
differences
speakacrosssuppressed
(1993,123).

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

363

Hekman

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Grant,Judith.1993. FundamentalFeminism:Contestingthe Core Conceptsof

FeministTheory.New York: Routledge.
Haraway,Donna. 1988. "SituatedKnowledges:The Science Question in FemiFeministStudies14:575-99.
nismand thePriviledgeof PartialPerspective."
1990. "A ManifestoforCyborgs:Science,Technologyand SocialistFemied. Linda Nicholson,190nismin the 1980s." In Feminism/Postmodernism,
233. New York: Routledge.
Harding,Sandra. 1986. The ScienceQuestionin Feminism.Ithaca,N.Y: Cornell
Press.
University
. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinkingfrom Women's
Press.
Lives. Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversity
Harding,Sandra,and MerrillHintikka,eds. 1983. DiscoveringReality:Feminist
Metaphysics,Methodology,and thePhilosophy
Perspectiveson Epistemology,
of Science.Dordrecht:Reidel.
In
Hartsock,Nancy. 1981. "FundamentalFeminism:Prospectand Perspective."
BuildingFeministTheory,ed. CharlotteBunch,32-43. New York:Longman.
and Dominationin theWomen'sMovement:The Dia.1983a. "Difference
lecticof Theoryand Practice."In Class, Race and Sex, ed. AmySwerdlowand
Hanna Lessinger,157-72. Boston:Hall.
. 1983b. "The FeministStandpoint:Developingthe Groundfora Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism." In Harding and Hintikka 1983,
283-310.
1983c. Money,Sex, and Power.New York:Longman.
.1987. "RethinkingModernism:Minorityvs. MajorityTheories."CulturalCritique7:187-206.
and PoliticalChange:IssuesforFeministThe.1989-90. "Postmodernism
ory."CulturalCritique14:15-33.
. 1990. "Foucault on Power: A TheoryforWomen?" In Feminism/Postmodernism,ed. Linda Nicholson,157-75. New York:Routledge.
Social Theory.
Hekman, Susan. 1983. Weber,theIdeal Typeand Contemporary
of NotreDame Press.
Notre Dame, Ind.: University
1995. "A Method forDifference:FeministMethodologyand the Chalof
lenge Difference."Paper presentedat the annual meetingof the American
PoliticalScienceAssociation,Chicago.
Obligation:A FeministMethodforPolitiHirschmann,Nancy.1992. Rethinking
Press.
cal Inquiry.Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversity
Hochschild, Arlie,with Anne Machung. 1989. The Second Shift.New York:
Viking.
Jaggar,Alison. 1983. FeministPoliticsand Human Nature. Totowa,N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld.
a Common
Kay,Judith.1994. "PoliticswithoutHuman Nature?Reconstructing
Humanity."Hypatia 9(1):21-52.
Longino, Helen. 1990. Scienceas Social Knowledge.Princeton,N.J.: Princeton
Press.
University
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1987. FeminismUnmodified:Discourses on Life and
Press.
Law. Cambridge,Mass: HarvardUniversity

364

SIGNS

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRUTH

AND METHOD

Hekman

Nelson, LynnHankinson.1990. Who Knows: FromQuine to a FeministEmpiricism.Philadelphia:TempleUniversity

Press.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1992. "Human Functioningand Social Justice:In Defense
of AristotelianEssentialism."PoliticalTheory20(2):202-46.
O'Brien, Mary. 1981. The Politics of Reproduction.New York: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
PolitiOkin, Susan Moller. 1994. "GenderInequalityand CulturalDifferences."
cal Theory22(1):5-24.
Pateman,Carole. 1988. The Sexual Contract.Stanford,Calif.: StanfordUniversityPress.
Rose, Hilary.1983. "Hand, Brain and Heart: A FeministEpistemologyforthe
Natural Sciences."Signs9:73-90.
. 1986. "Women'sWork:Women'sKnowledge."In WhatIs Feminism?A
Re-examination,ed. JulietMitchell and Ann Oakley, 616-83. New York:
Pantheon.
Ruddick,Sara. 1989. Maternal Thinking:Toward a Politics of Peace. Boston:
Beacon.
Sacks, Karen. 1988. Caringby theHour: Women,Workand Organizingat the
Duke Medical Center.Urbana and Chicago: University
of IllinoisPress.
Schutz,Alfred.1967. The Phenomenologyof the Social World,trans.George
Walschand FrederickLehnert.Evanston,Ill.: Northwestern
Press.
University
Smith,Dorothy.1979. "A Sociologyof Women."In The Prismof Sex, ed. Julia
Shermanand EvelynBeck, 135-87. Madison: University
of WisconsinPress.
. 1987a. The EverydayWorldas Problematic:A FeministSociology.Boston: NortheasternUniversity
Press.
.1987b. "Women'sPerspective
as a Radical Critiqueof Sociology."In Feminismand Methodology,ed. Sandra Harding, 84-96. Bloomington:Indiana
Press.
University
. 1990a. The Conceptual Practicesof Power: A FeministSociology of
Press.
Knowledge.Boston:NortheasternUniversity
.1990b. Texts,Facts,and Femininity:
ExploringRelationsof Ruling.London: Routledge.
Stanley,Liz, and Sue Wise. 1990. "Method, Methodologyand Epistemologyin
FeministResearchProcesses."In FeministPraxis:Research,Theoryand Epistemology,ed. Liz Stanley,20-60. London: Routledge.
Tuana, Nancy. 1991. "The Radical Future of FeministEmpiricism."Hypatia
7(1):100-114.
Weber,Max. 1949. The Methodologyof the Social Sciences,trans.and ed. Edward Shilsand HenryFinch.New York: FreePress.
. 1975. Roscherand Knies,trans.Guy Oakes. New York:FreePress.
Winant,Terry.1987. "The FeministStandpoint:A Matter of Language." Hypatia 2(1):123-48.
Wittgenstein,Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. New York:
Macmillan.
Young, Iris. 1980. "Socialist Feminismand the Limitsof Dual SystemTheory."
SocialistReview 10(2/3):169-88.

Winter 1997

This content downloaded from 212.175.32.130 on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:49:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SIGNS

365